AZ sheriff blames political rhetoric

[GoodWitch58]

Just as I can see nothing positive coming from the "hate filled" talk radio and television shows...I can see no reason for these kinds of guns to be allowed...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10collins.html?ref=us

If Loughner had gone to the Safeway carrying a regular pistol, the kind most Americans think of when they think of the right to bear arms, Giffords would probably still have been shot and we would still be having that conversation about whether it was a sane idea to put her Congressional district in the cross hairs of a rifle on the Internet.

But we might not have lost a federal judge, a 76-year-old church volunteer, two elderly women, Giffords?s 30-year-old constituent services director and a 9-year-old girl who had recently been elected to the student council at her school and went to the event because she wanted to see how democracy worked.

Loughner?s gun, a 9-millimeter Glock, is extremely easy to fire over and over, and it can carry a 30-bullet clip. It is ?not suited for hunting or personal protection,? said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign. ?What it?s good for is killing and injuring a lot of people quickly.?

why does anyone think allowing this kind of gun into open society is okay...its only purpose is to kill a lot of people quickly...

 

[30A Skunkape]

So the gunman was a nut. I place as much blame on Jesse Ventura's crazy conspiracy TV show, which directly fuels paranoid thinking. I bet a large amount of money he was a viewer of Ventura's show and never saw Palin's dumb map.

 

[DuneAHH]

So the gunman was a nut. I place as much blame on Jesse Ventura's crazy conspiracy TV show, which directly fuels paranoid thinking. I bet a large amount of money he was a viewer of Ventura's show and never saw Palin's dumb map.

Hey wait a minute Skunky... that's ME you're describing.
Although, my particular weapon of choice is a big HUG (and I'm Thankful to be 'armed' for it).

 

[futurebeachbum]

So the gunman was a nut. I place as much blame on Jesse Ventura's crazy conspiracy TV show, which directly fuels paranoid thinking. I bet a large amount of money he was a viewer of Ventura's show and never saw Palin's dumb map.

Exactly.

The implication of this incredibly opportunistic politician (who happens to be Sheriff) is that this wouldn't have happened without the rhetoric.

If that is true, how does he explain Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, Arthur Bremer, etc? What was the rhetoric then?

How is he sure that the significant increase in graphic violence on TV and in movies had no effect?

How does he know that violent video games weren't a factor?

What about the effect of the media now and the ability to be an instant celebrity?

What about social media like FB and Myspace? How can he be sure that they aren't a factor.

In reality, he doesn't know jack. He's just a politico who's far more interested in making points when he can than in thoughtful, reasoned analysis of how to prevent such crimes.

 

[Smiling JOe]

I find it ironic that politicians talk about "targeting and beating" other politicians, yet we use the term, "political correctness" to reference words not offending anyone.

(on a side note, Palin has found her place in the world, on a reality TV show, sandwiched between Kate Plus 8 and Bama Belles.)

Regardless of what is on or not on Palin's website about the cross hares (even if it's distasteful), if we look at the big picture, it really shouldn't matter in this particular case. Palin supposedly has a large following who have seen her cross hares, and don't like the Dems, but that doesn't make them want to go out and kill the politicians and other non-political bystanders, does it? If it did, then we have a problem with Palin's cross hares. As I see it, this shooter is a fruit loop that could have been made to kill by watching Wiley E Coyote or listeing to the silly rabbit on the cereal box. He is mentally disturbed and not fit to interact with society.

 

[futurebeachbum]

There's a difference between a state by state map that uses statistics to show which districts should be focused on in the next election because of the results of the Presidential election

That seems like a pretty convenient rationalization.

Its somehow OK for one party to use 'Target' language and place their 'sites' on 'targetted' states but not for the other.

I can't see that there is much difference.

Should we tolerate obviously violent rhetoric like 'They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun'? That's clearly designed to stir strong emotions and could easily lead to violence.

OTOH We still have the 1st amendment. Rep Gifford felt strongly enough about it that she read it to the House last week.

Its pretty hard to constrain rhetoric without trampling that amendment into the dust.

 

[Linda]

I find it ironic and pathetic that some politicians, media, sowal posters, elected officials etc. who are quick to blame hateful vitriol for the shootings are they themselves using hateful vitriol to make their point.

 

[Minnie]

There was a very fascinating and yet distrubing commentary on CNN last night that said there is enough blame on each side of the political fence that involves hateful, incendiary speeches. He also put blame on the media for using this friction to fuel their ratings. That all comes back to greed for money.

He also stated that with Facebook, Tweets, Internet forums, etc etc. what one says is never just consumed by a few.

He also stated that before the wounded even made it to the hospital blame was being put on different factions.

I am no supporter of Sarah Palin as far as her politics go, but I don't hate her as some do. There are some that literally feel anyone that supports her is a total idiot just as there are those that feel the same way about the President.

This commentator stated that many now feel that their view on politics is the only one and can never grasp how someone could feel differently.

That people have gone so far as to polarize themselves politically, not being able to be friends with someone with a different view.

It is a sad time when people can no longer accept the differences in each other.

 

[scooterbug44]

That seems like a pretty convenient rationalization.

Its somehow OK for one party to use 'Target' language and place their 'sites' on 'targetted' states but not for the other.

I can't see that there is much difference.

Should we tolerate obviously violent rhetoric like 'They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun'? That's clearly designed to stir strong emotions and could easily lead to violence.

OTOH We still have the 1st amendment. Rep Gifford felt strongly enough about it that she read it to the House last week.

Its pretty hard to constrain rhetoric without trampling that amendment into the dust.

No, what I said was that one map had a statistical basis to direct efforts to get more votes in close districts, while the other specifically targeted individuals and advocated getting rid of them.

And then I said both parties needed to clean up their acts.

 

[hkem1]

No, what I said was that one map had a statistical basis to direct efforts to get more votes in close districts, while the other specifically targeted individuals and advocated getting rid of them.

But that is incorrect. The Palin map had the crosshairs on Districts that McCain/Palin won and that a Demccrat Representative who voted for health care won as well.


The idea being that Republicans should target those districts because there were many people who voted for McCain but voted for a Democrat for congress.
The two maps have much more in common than you seem to think.